Original ArticleConstruction and Validation of a Population-Based Bone Densitometry Database
Abstract
Utilization of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for the initial diagnostic assessment of osteoporosis and in monitoring treatment has risen dramatically in recent years. Population-based studies of the impact of DXA and osteoporosis remain challenging because of incomplete and fragmented test data that exist in most regions. Our aim was to create and assess completeness of a database of all clinical DXA services and test results for the province of Manitoba, Canada and to present descriptive data resulting from testing. A regionally based bone density program for the province of Manitoba, Canada was established in 1997. Subsequent DXA services were prospectively captured in a program database. This database was retrospectively populated with earlier DXA results dating back to 1990 (the year that the first DXA scanner was installed) by integrating multiple data sources. A random chart audit was performed to assess completeness and accuracy of this dataset. For comparison, testing rates determined from the DXA database were compared with physician administrative claims data. There was a high level of completeness of this database (>99%) and accurate personal identifier information sufficient for linkage with other health care administrative data (>99%). This contrasted with physician billing data that were found to be markedly incomplete. Descriptive data provide a profile of individuals receiving DXA and their test results. In conclusion, the Manitoba bone density database has great potential as a resource for clinical and health policy research because it is population based with a high level of completeness and accuracy.
References (14)
- LL Roos et al.
Policy analysis in an information-rich environment
Soc Sci Med
(2004) - WD Leslie et al.
Establishing a regional bone density program: lessons from the Manitoba experience
J Clin Densitom
(2003) - LL Roos et al.
Assessing data quality: a computerized approach
Soc Sci Med
(1989) - SR Cummings et al.
Clinical use of bone densitometry: scientific review
JAMA
(2002) - JP Brown et al.
2002 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada
Canadian Med Assoc J
(2002) - NP Roos
Establishing a population data-based policy unit
Med Care
(1999) - SB Jaglal et al.
Patterns of use of the bone mineral density test in Ontario, 1992–1998
Canadian Med Assoc J
(2000)
Cited by (196)
Estimating Lumbar Spine Least Significant Change for Fewer than Four Vertebrae: The Manitoba BMD Registry
2024, Journal of Clinical DensitometryIntroduction: The International Society of Clinical Densitometry recommends omitting lumbar vertebrae affected by structural artifact from spine BMD measurement. Since reporting fewer than 4 vertebrae reduces spine BMD precision, least significant change (LSC) needs to be adjusted upwards when reporting spine BMD change based on fewer than 4 vertebrae.
Methodology: In order to simplify estimating LSC from combinations of vertebrae other than L1-L4 (denoted LSCL1-4 ), we analyzed 879 DXA spine scan-pairs from the Manitoba BMD Program's ongoing precision evaluation. The additional impact on the LSC of performing the second scan on the same day vs different day was also assessed.
Results: LSC progressively increased when fewer vertebrae were included, and also increased when the scans were performed on different days. We estimated that the LSCL1-4 should be adjusted upwards by 7 %, 24 % and 65 % to approximate the LSC for 3, 2, or 1 vertebral body, respectively. To additionally capture the greater LSC when the precision study was done on different days, LSCL1-4 derived from a precision study where scans were done on the same day should be adjusted upwards by 39 %, 60 % and 112 % for 3, 2, or 1 vertebral body, respectively.
Conclusion: LSCL1-4 derived from a precision study where scans are performed on the same day can be used to estimate LSC for fewer than 4 vertebrae and for scans performed on different days.
Effects of severe lumbar spine structural artifact on trabecular bone score (TBS): The Manitoba BMD Registry
2023, Journal of Clinical DensitometryTrabecular bone score (TBS) is a bone mineral density (BMD)-independent risk factor for fracture. During DXA analysis and BMD reporting, it is standard practice to exclude lumbar vertebral levels affected by structural artifact. Although TBS is relatively insensitive to degenerative artifact, it is uncertain whether TBS is still useful in the presence extreme structural artifact that precludes reliable spine BMD measurement even after vertebral exclusions. Among individuals aged 40 years and older undergoing baseline DXA assessment from September 2012 to March 2018 we identified three mutually exclusive groups: spine BMD reporting performed without exclusions (Group 1, N=12,865), spine BMD reporting performed with vertebral exclusions (Group 2, N=4867), and spine BMD reporting not performed due to severe structural artifact (Group 3, N=1541). No significant TBS difference was seen for Group 2 versus Group 1 (referent), whereas TBS was significantly greater in Group 3 (+0.041 partially adjusted, +0.043 fully adjusted). When analyzed by the reason for vertebral exclusion, multilevel degenerative changes significantly increased TBS (+0.041 partially adjusted, +0.042 fully adjusted), while instrumentation significantly reduced TBS (-0.059 partially adjusted, -0.051 fully adjusted). Similar results were seen when analyses were restricted to those in Group 3 with a single reason for vertebral exclusions, and when follow up scans were also included. During mean follow-up of 2.5 years there were 802 (4.2 %) individuals with one or more incident fractures. L1-L4 TBS showed significant fracture risk stratification in all groups including Group 3 (P-interaction >0.4). In conclusion, lumbar spine TBS can be reliably measured in the majority of lumbar spine DXA scans, including those with artifact affecting up to two vertebral levels. However, TBS is significantly affected by the presence of extreme structural artifact in the lumbar spine, especially those with multilevel degenerative disc changes and/or instrumentation that precludes reliable BMD reporting.
FRAX® adjustment using renormalized trabecular bone score (TBS) from L1 alone may be optimal for fracture prediction: The Manitoba BMD registry
2023, Journal of Clinical DensitometryLumbar spine trabecular bone score (TBS) used in conjunction with FRAX® improves 10-year fracture prediction. The derived FRAX risk adjustment is based upon TBS measured from L1-L4, designated TBSL1-L4-FRAX. In prior studies, TBS measurements that include L1 and exclude L4 give better fracture stratification than L1-L4. We compared risk stratification from TBS-adjusted FRAX using TBS derived from different combinations of upper lumbar vertebral levels renormalized for level-specific differences in individuals from the Manitoba Bone Density Program aged >40 years with baseline assessment of TBS and FRAX. TBS measurements for L1-L3, L1-L2 and L1 alone were calculated after renormalization for level-specific differences. Corresponding TBS-adjusted FRAX scores designated TBSL1-L3-FRAX, TBSL1-L2-FRAX and TBSL1-FRAX were compared with TBSL1-L4-FRAX for fracture risk stratification. Incident major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) and hip fractures were assessed. The primary outcome was incremental change in area under the curve (ΔAUC). The study population included 71,209 individuals (mean age 64 years, 89.8% female). Before renormalization, mean TBS for L1-3, L1-L2 and L1 was significantly lower and TBS-adjusted FRAX significantly higher than from using TBSL1-L4. These differences were largely eliminated when TBS was renormalized for level-specific differences. During mean follow-up of 8.7 years 6745 individuals sustained incident MOF and 2039 sustained incident hip fractures. Compared with TBSL1-L4-FRAX, use of FRAX without TBS was associated with lower stratification (ΔAUC = −0.009, p < 0.001). There was progressive improvement in MOF stratification using TBSL1-L3-FRAX (ΔAUC = +0.001, p < 0.001), TBSL1-L2-FRAX (ΔAUC = +0.004, p < 0.001) and TBSL1-FRAX (ΔAUC = +0.005, p < 0.001). TBSL1-FRAX was significantly better than all other combinations for MOF prediction (p < 0.001). Incremental improvement in AUC for hip fracture prediction showed a similar but smaller trend. In conclusion, this single large cohort study found that TBS-adjusted FRAX performance for fracture prediction was improved when limited to the upper lumbar vertebral levels and was best using L1 alone.
Adjusting Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) for level-specific differences reduces FRAX®-based treatment reclassification in patients with vertebral exclusions: The Manitoba BMD Registry
2023, Journal of Clinical DensitometryTrabecular bone score (TBS) is a FRAX®-independent risk factor for fracture prediction. TBS values increase from cranial to caudal, with the following mean differences between TBSL1-L4 and individual lumbar vertebrae: L1 −0.093, L2 −0.008, L3 +0.055 and L4 +0.046. Excluding vertebral levels can affect FRAX-based treatment recommendations close to the intervention threshold. We examined the effect of adjusting for level-specific TBS differences in individuals with vertebral exclusions due to structural artifact on TBS-adjusted FRAX-based treatment recommendations. We identified 71,209 individuals aged ≥40 years with TBS and FRAX calculations through the Manitoba Bone Density Program. In the 24,428 individuals with vertebral exclusions, adjusting TBS using these level-specific factors agreed with TBSL1-L4 (mean difference −0.001). We compared FRAX-based treatment recommendations for TBSL1-L4 and for non-excluded vertebral levels before and after adjusting for level-specific TBS differences. Among those with baseline major osteoporotic fracture risk ≥15 %, TBS with vertebral exclusions reclassified FRAX-based treatment in 10.6 % of individuals compared with TBSL1-L4, and was reduced to 7.2 % after adjusting for level-specific differences. In 11,131 patients where L1–L2 was used for BMD reporting (the most common exclusion pattern with the largest TBS effect), treatment reclassification was reduced from 13.9 % to 2.4 %, respectively. Among individuals with baseline hip fracture risk ≥2 %, TBS vertebral exclusions reclassified 7.1 % compared with TBSL1-L4, but only 4.5 % after adjusting for level-specific differences. When L1–L2 was used for BMD reporting, treatment reclassification from hip fracture risk was reduced from 9.2 % to 5.2 %. In conclusion, TBS and TBS-adjusted FRAX-based treatment recommendations are affected by vertebral level exclusions for structural artifact. Adjusting for level-specific differences in TBS reduces reclassification in FRAX-based treatment recommendations.
The use of deep learning in medical imaging to improve spine care: A scoping review of current literature and clinical applications
2023, North American Spine Society JournalArtificial intelligence is a revolutionary technology that promises to assist clinicians in improving patient care. In radiology, deep learning (DL) is widely used in clinical decision aids due to its ability to analyze complex patterns and images. It allows for rapid, enhanced data, and imaging analysis, from diagnosis to outcome prediction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current literature and clinical utilization of DL in spine imaging.
This study is a scoping review and utilized the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology to review the scientific literature from 2012 to 2021. A search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embased, and IEEE Xplore databases with syntax specific for DL and medical imaging in spine care applications was conducted to collect all original publications on the subject. Specific data was extracted from the available literature, including algorithm application, algorithms tested, database type and size, algorithm training method, and outcome of interest.
A total of 365 studies (total sample of 232,394 patients) were included and grouped into 4 general applications: diagnostic tools, clinical decision support tools, automated clinical/instrumentation assessment, and clinical outcome prediction. Notable disparities exist in the selected algorithms and the training across multiple disparate databases. The most frequently used algorithms were U-Net and ResNet. A DL model was developed and validated in 92% of included studies, while a pre-existing DL model was investigated in 8%. Of all developed models, only 15% of them have been externally validated.
Based on this scoping review, DL in spine imaging is used in a broad range of clinical applications, particularly for diagnosing spinal conditions. There is a wide variety of DL algorithms, database characteristics, and training methods. Future studies should focus on external validation of existing models before bringing them into clinical use.
Trabecular Bone Score Vertebral Exclusions Affect Risk Classification and Treatment Recommendations: The Manitoba Bmd Registry
2023, Journal of Clinical DensitometryLumbar spine trabecular bone score (TBS), a texture measure derived from spine dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) images, is a bone mineral density (BMD)-independent risk factor for fracture. Lumbar vertebral levels that show structural artifact are excluded from BMD measurement. TBS is relatively unaffected by degenerative artifact, and it is uncertain whether the same exclusions should be applied to TBS reporting. To gain insight into the clinical impact of vertebral exclusion on TBS, we examined the effect of lumbar vertebral exclusions in routine clinical practice on tertile-based TBS categorization and TBS adjusted FRAX-based treatment recommendations. The study population consisted of 71,209 individuals aged 40 years and older with narrow fan-beam spine DXA examinations and retrospectively-derived TBS. During BMD reporting, 34.3% of the scans had one or more vertebral exclusions for structural artifact. When TBS was derived from the same vertebral levels used for BMD reporting, using fixed L1-L4 tertile cutoffs (1.23 and 1.31 from the McCloskey meta-analysis) reclassified 17.9% to a lower and 6.5% to a higher TBS category, with 75.6% unchanged. Reclassification was reduced from 24.4% overall to 17.2% when level-specific tertile cutoffs from the software manufacturer were used. Treatment reclassification based upon FRAX major osteoporotic fracture probability occurred in 2.9% overall, but in 9.6% of those with baseline risk ≥15%. For treatment based upon FRAX hip fracture probability, reclassification occurred in 3.4% overall, but in 10.4% in those with baseline risk ≥2%. In summary, lumbar spine TBS measurements based upon vertebral levels other than L1-L4 can alter the tertile category and treatment recommendations based upon TBS-adjusted FRAX calculation, especially for those close to or exceeding the treatment cut-off. Manufacturer level-specific tertile cut-offs should be used if vertebral exclusions are applied.